Jump to content



Welcome to AstaHost - Dear Guest , Please Register here to get Your own website. - Ask a Question / Express Opinion / Reply w/o Sign-Up!

Toggle shoutbox Shoutbox Open the Shoutbox in a popup

@  yordan : (21 April 2014 - 09:11 PM) Hey, Ritesh, Did You Hear Me?
@  yordan : (14 April 2014 - 05:28 PM) By The Way, This Could Be An Interesting Subject For A Topic, What About Posting This Question? Let's See If Other People Have The Same Feeling Concerning Bootlists!
@  yordan : (13 April 2014 - 09:36 AM) Boot Order : Cd, [Usb,] Hard Drive :D
@  yordan : (11 April 2014 - 07:23 PM) I Simply Let The Bios Do That
@  Ritesh : (11 April 2014 - 10:23 AM) Is It Possible To Launch Fedora Live Cd Or Installation Disk From Hard Drive On Windows Platform Using Grub Mbr File.
@  Ritesh : (11 April 2014 - 10:21 AM) No U Are Not.. Btw.. I Have Question For You.
@  yordan : (10 April 2014 - 08:02 AM) You Are Partially Right.
I Was Not.
Nevertheless, I Am Again :)
@  Ritesh : (09 April 2014 - 07:33 PM) :P
@  Ritesh : (09 April 2014 - 07:33 PM) I Think U R Not..
@  yordan : (09 April 2014 - 09:28 AM) I'm The Master Of The Shoutbox!
@  yordan : (05 April 2014 - 10:32 PM) He-He
@  Ritesh : (04 April 2014 - 06:59 PM) Ha Ha Ha ....
@  yordan : (04 April 2014 - 11:15 AM) Welcome Back, Starscream!
@  yordan : (03 April 2014 - 02:31 PM) And I Hope That He Will Come Back Soon :)
@  yordan : (01 April 2014 - 02:53 PM) Nice, Ritesh Came, I'm Not Home Alone Today.
@  Ritesh : (01 April 2014 - 08:51 AM) Oh!!! Poor Dear Yordan..
@  yordan : (31 March 2014 - 10:02 AM) I'm A Poor Lonesome Cow-Boy
@  yordan : (27 March 2014 - 02:22 PM) He Is Unpatient Due To His Patients!
@  Ritesh : (27 March 2014 - 10:46 AM) :(
@  Ritesh : (27 March 2014 - 10:46 AM) He Is Busy With His Patients.

Photo
- - - - -

What Think You Of Windows Xp-95-98-2000


34 replies to this topic

#1 gc472118

gc472118

    Newbie [ Level 1 ]

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 17 September 2004 - 10:58 PM

I like XP, it's simple to use and it's great.
But windows 98 and 95 runs much better on my system dan xp.
I've rebuild my pc for xp and he's faster now.

Edited by microscopic^earthling, 22 August 2005 - 04:49 PM.


#2 qwijibow

qwijibow

    Way Out Of Control - You need a life :)

  • Members
  • 1,366 posts
  • Location:Nottingham England
  • Interests:Computer / nerd related things (who would have guessed)<br />also. the following cartoons...<br /><br />South Park<br />King of the hill<br />Family guy<br />Sponge Bob Square pants<br />Simpsons

Posted 18 September 2004 - 11:42 AM

I like XP, it's simple to use and it's great.
But windows 98 and 95 runs much better on my system dan xp.
I've rebuild my pc for xp and he's faster now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


lol... speed is important to me too.. so i went overkill !

the problem with XP is its onl one Operating System.
and there are many many different processors in use by home users...

AMD K6 / Athlon / Duron / Athlon XP / Athlon-Tbird / Pentium 3 / Pentium 4 / Pentium XP
Some have HT (hyper threading) some dont.

and So windows is Compiled with Optimisations that allow it to run as best as possible on every porcessor.

However... there are better processor optimisations.. BUT, if for example you Optimised a program fully for an AMD Athlon-Tbird then it would run lighting fast on that porcessor, but it wouldn't work at all on a Duron, or pentium !

like i said, i went Overkill... i Re-compiled my Whole Operating System for my Athlon Processor.
i used the veery highest optimisation flags, so most of the programs on my computer will work on a pentium computer.

and i have to say, you can definatly tell the difference.

dont get me wrong, OPtimisation is not the only thing that affects performace, but it does help.. alot !

#3 Herbert

Herbert

    Super Member

  • [HOSTED]
  • 501 posts

Posted 18 September 2004 - 05:20 PM

I'll stick with Windows 2000 for now. It works for my purposes.

like i said, i went Overkill... i Re-compiled my Whole Operating System for my Athlon Processor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So wait. Are you saying you've recompiled Windows, or are you talking about Linux? Can you post information on how to do either, because this topic is very interesting to me. :)

#4 Guest_Jhonny_*

Guest_Jhonny_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 September 2004 - 06:00 PM

I'll stick with Windows 2000 for now. It works for my purposes.
So wait. Are you saying you've recompiled Windows, or are you talking about Linux? Can you post information on how to do either, because this topic is very interesting to me.  :)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Noway. Microsoft will never release compilable source code.
Appearently there were some leaked windows source code, but what experts say it probably is less than 10% of whole thing. Although I heard the leaked source code was a couple of hundred megs. No wonder windows is full of bug. 200MB for 10% code. More code more bugs :)

#5 Guest_Jhonny_*

Guest_Jhonny_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 September 2004 - 06:02 PM

I'm still stuck with w2k. You know XP liscencing sucks :)

#6 r3d

r3d

    death

  • Members
  • 268 posts

Posted 18 September 2004 - 06:50 PM

win 2k runs faster than xp on my pc
but i use xp
why?
i tweak my xp and now it's faster as tweak win2k

and about windows 9x i hate blue screen, it still exist on xp but i just saw it once when i try to use an old windows appz :)

#7 chronogamer28

chronogamer28

    Advanced Member

  • [HOSTED]
  • 143 posts
  • Location:United States

Posted 18 September 2004 - 07:06 PM

XP runs faster on my rig. Also peaks out performance too.

#8 currahee

currahee

    Member - Active Contributor

  • [HOSTED]
  • 82 posts
  • Location:At my computer desk

Posted 18 September 2004 - 07:15 PM

WinXP- The most stable Windows version ever. I can't believe after 11 years, they are still developing on top of the Windows NT core. Windows NT 3.1 was released in 1993 and today, Windows XP is built on top of that, as is Win2k and NT4.
WinXP also runs games better and faster than Windows 2000. Its like Windows 98SE and Windows 2000 combined. Visually, its on par with Windows 2000. Win2000 just doesnt have that luna XP interface. I remember t he hype so much about XP :)
Win2000- Not a bad OS, marginally less stable than XP but it still works fine. Visually its a cleaned up Windows NT4/Windows 98SE interface and some nice GUI effects added on. Kinda really bad for running games though. Its a business work OS, not a gaming hobbist OS.
WinME- Worst OS ever! I think that's all there is to say about that.
Win98SE- Microsoft did a good job with SE. They cleared up and well implemented the IE 4 integration (... is that right? Though at the cost of creating so many security holes....). It was more stable and had Plus! pack built in.
Win98- Horrbile OS. Microsoft didn't integrate IE4 well, resulting in slowdowns and too many crashes to bear.

#9 Herbert

Herbert

    Super Member

  • [HOSTED]
  • 501 posts

Posted 19 September 2004 - 10:46 PM

You forgot Windows 95 :)

I remember getting a Packard Bell, 66 mhz, with Win95... And having it blue screen the first time it booted :)
I thought that if you even bumped the mouse when it was loading, it would crash the thing! 14.4 modem... a 1 meg file took a half hour... How did we live back then?!

#10 qwijibow

qwijibow

    Way Out Of Control - You need a life :)

  • Members
  • 1,366 posts
  • Location:Nottingham England
  • Interests:Computer / nerd related things (who would have guessed)<br />also. the following cartoons...<br /><br />South Park<br />King of the hill<br />Family guy<br />Sponge Bob Square pants<br />Simpsons

Posted 20 September 2004 - 07:01 AM

Lol.. im using Linux :)

you can re-compile any Linux Distro, but Gentoo (www.gentoo.org) is especially geared towards home compiling.

just make sure you set CFLAGS="-O2 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer -march=athlon -mcpu=athlon"
(or -O3 instead of -O2 fif you are feeling dareing and your machine is in perfect condition)

replacing athlon with the name of your processor.... athlon-tbird athlon-xp pentium pentium-xp
that type of thing.

But the best speed boos will prbably come from re-compiling the latest source code...
www.kernel.org
get the latest kenrel, and after you unzip it...

make menuconfig
make bzImage
make modules
make modules install
make install

#11 Guest_mastercomputers_*

Guest_mastercomputers_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 September 2004 - 08:22 AM

WinXP- The most stable Windows version ever. I can't believe after 11 years, they are still developing on top of the Windows NT core. Windows NT 3.1 was released in 1993 and today, Windows XP is built on top of that, as is Win2k and NT4.
WinXP also runs games better and faster than Windows 2000. Its like Windows 98SE and Windows 2000 combined. Visually, its on par with Windows 2000. Win2000 just doesnt have that luna XP interface. I remember t he hype so much about XP :lol:
Win2000- Not a bad OS, marginally less stable than XP but it still works fine. Visually its a cleaned up Windows NT4/Windows 98SE interface and some nice GUI effects added on. Kinda really bad for running games though. Its a business work OS, not a gaming hobbist OS.
WinME- Worst OS ever! I think that's all there is to say about that.
Win98SE- Microsoft did a good job with SE. They cleared up and well implemented the IE 4 integration (... is that right? Though at the cost of creating so many security holes....). It was more stable and had Plus! pack built in.
Win98- Horrbile OS. Microsoft didn't integrate IE4 well, resulting in slowdowns and too many crashes to bear.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Windows has been developing on itself since the beginning, rewriting from scratch is far from the truth. If they rewrote their OS, then a lot of their obsolete, since the prehistoric ages of DOS would not be left over, who here loads information off a cassette tape drive? There's more junk left over than just that.

There has not been much major changes, basically it's just been repackaged and labelled a new version/year and everyone flocks out to buy it, so they jazzed up the GUI a bit, is that a major change?, they added new functions, is that a major change? A major change would involve rewriting the Windows APIs and not adding functionality to it, that could work with their current APIs.

Why isn't it working with your older hardware? Well MS are known for breaking compatibility and not actually fixing things. It's usually a case with their patches, if it's patching against a worm, it's breaking the worms compatibility with their OS.

I do believe this whole Reverse Engineering their OS is a MS cover for what they did in the early days and that a lot of their code wasn't their own. I've still got little to believe that Bill Gates created the BASIC interpreter since it could have been stolen from an HP Calculator that existed around that time. Apart from that, everything else was either partially them helping out but them being the first to market before it's competitors. Note that I mentioned market and not created.

The story now will be somewhat different, they would not have to do so much now. OK maybe it's still the same.


MC

#12 qwijibow

qwijibow

    Way Out Of Control - You need a life :)

  • Members
  • 1,366 posts
  • Location:Nottingham England
  • Interests:Computer / nerd related things (who would have guessed)<br />also. the following cartoons...<br /><br />South Park<br />King of the hill<br />Family guy<br />Sponge Bob Square pants<br />Simpsons

Posted 20 September 2004 - 07:15 PM

Windows....

It started of its life as a cheap and quick hack of an OS for home computers.....
and it was.... well it wasnt brilliant, buy you get what you pay for....

then the price rose and rose and rose.... and now its an expensive cheap hack of an OS.

#13 antitoxic

antitoxic

    Member [ Level 1 ]

  • Members
  • 46 posts

Posted 20 September 2004 - 07:20 PM

MAC rulezz... Microsoft products are all copied from other place ..Trust the original... I use Mac and I'm very pleased :)

#14 chronogamer28

chronogamer28

    Advanced Member

  • [HOSTED]
  • 143 posts
  • Location:United States

Posted 20 September 2004 - 08:22 PM

Down with Mac OS!!! :)

#15 almoo7

almoo7

    Advanced Member

  • [HOSTED]
  • 139 posts
  • Location:Philippines
  • Interests:Computers

Posted 21 September 2004 - 03:23 AM

Windows XP SP2

Less Security Flaws
Better System Management
More user-friendly than ever!
Nice interface.
Good features
Possibility of new security and hardware updates for free [Registered]

... and works well for me. :)

#16 qwijibow

qwijibow

    Way Out Of Control - You need a life :)

  • Members
  • 1,366 posts
  • Location:Nottingham England
  • Interests:Computer / nerd related things (who would have guessed)<br />also. the following cartoons...<br /><br />South Park<br />King of the hill<br />Family guy<br />Sponge Bob Square pants<br />Simpsons

Posted 21 September 2004 - 09:39 PM

MAC rulezz... Microsoft products are all copied from other place ..Trust the original... I use Mac and I'm very pleased


Trust the origonal....... ?!
Well... i actually like the mac... but from the way you call it on origonal, you are probably unaware that MacOS 1 -> 9 absolutly sucked... and the Mac almost went bankrupt.. what Saved it was MacOSX, which is based on FreeBSD... a re-written kernel, and new Graphical interface.. but the guts that make it work are BSD... and FreeBSD just like Linux are Open source Unix clones....

so.... well... Yay to the origonal... UNIX !

infact most OS today are unix based. (except windows)


Windows XP SP2

Less Security Flaws
Better System Management
More user-friendly than ever!
Nice interface.
Good features
Possibility of new security and hardware updates for free [Registered]

... and works well for me.  :)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


MS said that Windows98 SE was more secure and fewer bugs than windoes 98..
it said the same about windows 2000... it said the same about windowsXP.. it said the same about Serive pack 1... and now its saying the same about service pack 2....

and yet the number of exploits and virii written has been exponentially increacing ever since DOS.

#17 kc8yff

kc8yff

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 100 posts
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 21 September 2004 - 10:47 PM

Windows 2000 is what I am using. It's perfectly fine and I don't really see the need (for someone like me) to have XP.

Although, I would like to try a Mac OS out. I've used Win and Linux, now I need to try a Mac!

#18 chronogamer28

chronogamer28

    Advanced Member

  • [HOSTED]
  • 143 posts
  • Location:United States

Posted 22 September 2004 - 12:17 AM

Heh, well, I'm still sticking with Windows. Can't wait for Longhorn to come!

#19 qwijibow

qwijibow

    Way Out Of Control - You need a life :)

  • Members
  • 1,366 posts
  • Location:Nottingham England
  • Interests:Computer / nerd related things (who would have guessed)<br />also. the following cartoons...<br /><br />South Park<br />King of the hill<br />Family guy<br />Sponge Bob Square pants<br />Simpsons

Posted 22 September 2004 - 12:30 AM

Heh, well, I'm still sticking with Windows. Can't wait for Longhorn to come!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Why are you excited about Longhorn ?
from what ive read, all the major changes are in the API's.
Unless you are a developer, this wont affect you.

WinFS DID look interesting.... but thats dead...
and the Linux version of WinFS was intersting... but the novelty wares off quickly.

#20 almoo7

almoo7

    Advanced Member

  • [HOSTED]
  • 139 posts
  • Location:Philippines
  • Interests:Computers

Posted 22 September 2004 - 04:15 AM

MS said that Windows98 SE was more secure and fewer bugs than windoes 98..
it said the same about windows 2000... it said the same about windowsXP.. it said the same about Serive pack 1... and now its saying the same about service pack 2....

and yet the number of exploits and virii written has been exponentially increacing ever since DOS.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Hmmmm, it is only my opinion, if you say that - then I can do nothing as it is your opinion. People always claim this and that but it's the experience of the user that really counts. I've used windows 98 and if you ask me, Windows XP is a lot better. Why would microsoft release Windows XP if it was not better than Windows 98? Maybe you just used the first release of XP and you failed to upgrade it? It is very normal for every software to have security flaws, even their latest releases(yes, it is normal) or maybe you haven't used Windows XP at all? If you're saying that because you hear people say it(or microsoft themselves) then better not say it at all.

-Look at the interface and features of Windows XP and Windows 98, can you differentiate which is the better one?- :)



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users